Gun Free Zone liability - Are business owners responsible?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by TekGreg, Jul 24, 2012.

  1. TekGreg

    TekGreg Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,000
    0
    0
    Should people responsible for creating Gun Free Zones (GFZs) also be liable for any deaths or injuries it causes? There are some sites that have started discussing the liability of city officials or business owners creating GFZs and not allowing legally licensed people to defend themselves to their own detriment. What happens when the theater owners in Aurora, CO. get sued by people that had CCWs and weren't allowed to carry? Do these owners and their insurance companies carry a GREATER responsibility for creating a life-threatening GFZ?

    What are your thoughts?
     
  2. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    Absolutely. I think they should be held completely responsible for what happens in gun free zones.
     

  3. RJMercer

    RJMercer New Member

    519
    0
    0
  4. TekGreg

    TekGreg Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,000
    0
    0
    I wonder if it would be worth it for a pro-NRA or pro-gun attorney to do a class action lawsuit in the name of all the disarmed citizens. THAT would put it front page in the paper!
     
  5. JeeperSC

    JeeperSC New Member

    120
    0
    0
    I don't think a business should be held liable in that case. Because I feel a private business owner should have the right to not allow someone on their property for any reason, even because of a gun.

    At the same time, I don't think it should be a 'criminal matter' or even a violation of your Concealed weapons license for bringing your gun into a business that forbids them. It should be as simple as the business owner/employee asking you to leave the property. And if you refuse to leave it then becomes trespassing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  6. armsmaster270

    armsmaster270 New Member

    755
    0
    0
    I'm with the Sue Them crowd if you cause injury or death by your policy you should pay.
     
  7. towboater

    towboater Well-Known Member

    4,614
    90
    48
    NO.

    If a buisnes owner is responsible for deaths due to gfz.
    The owner will also be responsible for any deaths caused from allowing concealed carry.
    And if that's the case. I sure ain't gonna have a business.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  8. steve4102

    steve4102 New Member

    238
    0
    0
    The theater owners in Aurora CO had nothing to do with the Gun Free Zone. The entire city of Aurora CO is a gun free zone. That's right, it is illegal to carry anywhere in the city of Aurora.

    The City of Aurora, Colorado would have arrested anyone who stopped the Batman massacre with a concealed weapon.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/036549_Aurora_concealed_carry_gun_confiscation.html
     
  9. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Exactly right. Also, as a consumer you have a choice to avoid commercial establishments with a GFZ policy.
     
  10. steve4102

    steve4102 New Member

    238
    0
    0
    So, what do you do when your entire city becomes a GFZ?
     
  11. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,992
    51
    48
    I dont know where they came up with that information. But, a Cloroado Concealed carry permit is valid throughout the entire state of Colorado. Hickenlooper tried to ban carry in Denver when he was Mayor. But Gov Ritter signed a bill that said a city could not deny it. Dont remember which bill it was. But t was a big deal to all of us here.
     
  12. towboater

    towboater Well-Known Member

    4,614
    90
    48
    Each business owner should have the right to decide if CC is allowed.

    Should be that way with smoking also.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  13. steve4102

    steve4102 New Member

    238
    0
    0
    here ya go.

    http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/aurora-co-gun-control-68844/
     
  14. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    I like what Jeeper said, that's the elusive middile ground everybody seeks. In some states (SC) a lot of laws would have to be changed as it's a FELONY :eek: to carry in a GFZ...good luck with that one. I've been copy and pasting thei quote by Thomas Jefferson a lot lately as it seems to fit this scenario...

    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’
    -Thomas Jefferson
     
  15. TekGreg

    TekGreg Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,000
    0
    0
    Steve, thanks for clearing that up. In this case, the owners would not be partly liable, but the city could be sued for creating the situation whereby licensed citizens were not allowed to defend themselves.

    This discussion was for both situations in general. A lot of merchants here in Ohio are unaware that they are in one of only two states that hold them financially liable for their decision to create a GFZ. However, I'd like to discuss both private business owners and municipalities together.
     
  16. TekGreg

    TekGreg Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,000
    0
    0
    GREAT quote, Vincent! Thanks for posting it again. It seems SC takes the GFZ more seriously than other states. I wonder if when they wrote that law, they were thinking about courthouses and sheriff's stations more than your local Appleby's. A campaign to get the law clarified and rewritten may be in order.

    The middle ground that you speak of could be that trained CCW holders fall under the same category as police and security guards; i.e. for example to be exempt from any GFZ zone that is not state sponsored, courthouses, sheriff's stations, police stations, etc.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  17. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    Im a huge proponent of voting with my dollar and do not do buisness with establishments not allowing me to carry.

    With that said, I believe a private property owner has created a dangerous situation by not allowing me to execute a Constitutionally protected right. This then makes that property owner liable in my humble opinion.

    This argument cant be made that by allowing chl holders to carry on property the owner would be liable in the event of a justified self defence shooting. There are too many fail-safes in that equation.

    An unwillingness to defend yourself is not justification for a lawsuit either IMHO.
     
  18. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Move or run for city council.

    When government effectively bans guns, then you have a choice to make: will you knowingly break the law to exercise your unalienable right, or will you capitulate and get rid of your guns, or will you relocate?

    My point was that private entities absolutely have the right to tell guests or patrons what is and is not allowed on the premises. If you don't like it, don't go there.
     
  19. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    GTHO, imo.
     
  20. JeeperSC

    JeeperSC New Member

    120
    0
    0
    Say you failed to see the 'no firearms' sign and someone calls the police.
    As long as your permit is valid and theres not anything 'suspicious' going on with you, I think most police would be pretty lenient with this.